It'll just make you want something better...

This is one of those lenses that will give the occasional taste of what a great telephoto experience could be.

Biggest gripe, as with pretty much all plastic lenses on oly bodies, is the shutter shock, which, can be really extreme on this one, and ruin tons of photos. You won't "catch" it in the viewfinder without constant chimping at 1:1 crop to camera processed jpgs (raw previews on camera often aren't detailed enough to show it).

From ~75-150mm, this lens is reasonably sharp. Above 200mm sharpness drops off at a pace that brings into question whether its worth using anything above 200mm... Basically choosing when to crop at this point, and the effects of shutter shock get even worse above 200mm, even with anti-shock modes.

For best results, set electronic shutter for all shots with this lens. Use F8 for basically everything where light isn't an issue.

This lens will make you yearn for a better quality telephoto lens.

The 75mm prime 1.8 may actually be better for telephoto work than the 75-300mm in many applications. The prime is significantly sharper, provides several stops of light gathering advantage, and doesn't suffer from shutter shock, so can be used with the shutter for maximum sensor performance. The 75-300 will only produce better results in ideal conditions (lots of light). In real world conditions, shooting with the 75mm prime then cropping after the fact will often deliver similar or better effective resolving power.

Couldn't disagree more. For the money the 75-300 is a quite sharp telephoto zoom. Also, my copy is sharp at 300mm if my technique and handholding ability is up to snuff. Since many of my 300mm shots are sharp, it shows that the "lack of sharpness" is just the ability to hold the lens still.

I'm with you Gary.  Most of the complaints I've seen with this lens relate to people who don't quite understand what they are doing with this lens.   It's very light, and is the equivalent to a 12x telescope.  Try hand holding one of those and see how easy it is to keep steady.  It's a "consumer" grade lens and quality might vary from one sample to the next, but most I've seen are quite good.  My son bought one used and it's excellent.

It's imperative that you have this lens in a stable, steady situation when you use it, and it's a good idea to remember the old rule of thumb:  Minimum shutter speed should be same as the maximum focal length in 35mm (full frame) terms.  In this case, 1/600th of a sec. at 300mm. The excellent image stabilization will certain help, but still I think this is a good rule to follow even if it means cranking up the ISO to levels you don't like.  I've nothing but good results with this lens, and even though I bought the excellent PL 100~400 I have kept my 75~300 for those times I just want to travel light.

I have found my lens to be plenty sharp at all focal lengths.  I don't find it quite as good as my 100~400, but then it didn't cost 1,800.00 and it doesn't weigh 2.5 lbs. either.  IMHO it's a pretty good bargain...but requires good technique to get good results.

Bobby J wrote:

I'm with you Gary. Most of the complaints I've seen with this lens relate to people who don't quite understand what they are doing with this lens. It's very light, and is the equivalent to a 12x telescope. Try hand holding one of those and see how easy it is to keep steady. It's a "consumer" grade lens and quality might vary from one sample to the next, but most I've seen are quite good. My son bought one used and it's excellent.

It's imperative that you have this lens in a stable, steady situation when you use it, and it's a good idea to remember the old rule of thumb: Minimum shutter speed should be same as the maximum focal length in 35mm (full frame) terms. In this case, 1/600th of a sec. at 300mm. The excellent image stabilization will certain help, but still I think this is a good rule to follow even if it means cranking up the ISO to levels you don't like. I've nothing but good results with this lens, and even though I bought the excellent PL 100~400 I have kept my 75~300 for those times I just want to travel light.

I have found my lens to be plenty sharp at all focal lengths. I don't find it quite as good as my 100~400, but then it didn't cost 1,800.00 and it doesn't weigh 2.5 lbs. either. IMHO it's a pretty good bargain...but requires good technique to get good results.

Although I don’t have this particular lens, I have seen enough excellent images online over the years to know that it is a quite capable lens, and I agree with all that Gary and Bobby have written here.

Perhaps I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but one thing I really don’t like about these simple user “reviews” is that more than half of them never provide any evidence (images) to support some of the comments and ratings, and I’m including everything from poor to excellent ratings.

I just want to encourage everyone who posts these user reviews to at least include some evidence to support your stories — including both “this is the best thing since sliced bread” and “this really stinks”, and everything in between.  Without supporting images, it leaves most of us “wanting to see something better in a review”.

Undoubtedly, this doesn't compare with a pro quality, $11k 600mm Canon lens.

You may be expecting too much. I think it's a mind-blowing value. And considering its capabilities, it's *tiny* and *light*. Try hauling the full frame equivalent around hanging off your neck.

I think it rocks. If I had to document the snow leopard for Nat Geo (fat chance), I prolly wouldn't gamble the entire job on exclusively carrying this lens around, but hey. I just think it opens possibilities I never had before.

...p

I am finding this discussion very interesting as I have been researching this lens and thinking of buying one. From what I have garnered it would seem to be an awful good "bang for the buck" - it being impossible for me to purchase a 600mm lens made by iether Nikon or Canon, and I know I would hardly ever carry the thing around with me.

On another note and as I am a new Olympus owner (M52) and regarding "shutter shock" - not sure what that is? However I have noticed that when releasing the shutter on the M5 it is nowhere as nice as my Nikon D3, the D3 just requires a gentle caress whereas the Oly needs more of a "stab" which hardly lends itself to sharp exposures, especially with a long lens.

Has anyone tried using this lens to shoot motorsports? I will be at the Laguna Seca World Superbike race June next year and intend to take the M5 and while I understand that the M5 is not recommended for fast focus tracking I think I will try anyway probably using the 75-300 Oly lens. Any advice on equipment and technique would be appreciated!

Cheers

Kiwi Mike wrote:

I am finding this discussion very interesting as I have been researching this lens and thinking of buying one. From what I have garnered it would seem to be an awful good "bang for the buck" - it being impossible for me to purchase a 600mm lens made by iether Nikon or Canon, and I know I would hardly ever carry the thing around with me.

On another note and as I am a new Olympus owner (M52) and regarding "shutter shock" - not sure what that is? However I have noticed that when releasing the shutter on the M5 it is nowhere as nice as my Nikon D3, the D3 just requires a gentle caress whereas the Oly needs more of a "stab" which hardly lends itself to sharp exposures, especially with a long lens.

Shutter shock is no more an issue with this lens as with any other. Shutter shock is related to the internal mechanisms of the shutter on the camera and is essentially made a non issue with a menu setting for "0 second anti-shock". That setting is available on my EM-1 I. When I first bought my gear I didn't think my images were as sharp as I wanted. But since I've employed "0 second anti-shock" I no longer have those issues.

Has anyone tried using this lens to shoot motorsports? I will be at the Laguna Seca World Superbike race June next year and intend to take the M5 and while I understand that the M5 is not recommended for fast focus tracking I think I will try anyway probably using the 75-300 Oly lens. Any advice on equipment and technique would be appreciated!

The main thing is to make sure shutter speed is high enough at long focal lengths. The second thing for me is to try to brace well at long focal lengths when shooting.

Cheers

-- hide signature --

Mike

Kiwi Mike wrote:

... I will be at the Laguna Seca World Superbike race June next year and intend to take the M5 and while I understand that the M5 is not recommended for fast focus tracking I think I will try anyway probably using the 75-300 Oly lens. Any advice on equipment and technique would be appreciated!

Laguna Seca in the summer is so lit up by the sun that this lens will work great.

I'd recommend getting a pit pass and bring along 25/1.4 (preferably the PanaLeica) for fast, fun shooting in the pit.

...p

mdocod wrote:

This is one of those lenses that will give the occasional taste of what a great telephoto experience could be.

Biggest gripe, as with pretty much all plastic lenses on oly bodies, is the shutter shock, which, can be really extreme on this one, and ruin tons of photos. You won't "catch" it in the viewfinder without constant chimping at 1:1 crop to camera processed jpgs (raw previews on camera often aren't detailed enough to show it).

From ~75-150mm, this lens is reasonably sharp. Above 200mm sharpness drops off at a pace that brings into question whether its worth using anything above 200mm... Basically choosing when to crop at this point, and the effects of shutter shock get even worse above 200mm, even with anti-shock modes.

For best results, set electronic shutter for all shots with this lens. Use F8 for basically everything where light isn't an issue.

This lens will make you yearn for a better quality telephoto lens.

The 75mm prime 1.8 may actually be better for telephoto work than the 75-300mm in many applications. The prime is significantly sharper, provides several stops of light gathering advantage, and doesn't suffer from shutter shock, so can be used with the shutter for maximum sensor performance. The 75-300 will only produce better results in ideal conditions (lots of light). In real world conditions, shooting with the 75mm prime then cropping after the fact will often deliver similar or better effective resolving power.

As a former owner of a 75-300, I generally agree with this review.

The lens is a good performer at its price point, but I did find myself wishing I had faster and sharper glass at the long end when I took it on African safaris.

Image quality on my copy was good from 75mm to 240mm in bright conditions (see examples below).

It did require excellent technique to maximise image quality - I usually rested it on a bean bag to keep it dead still, as a monopod or even a tripod wasn't enough to stop shake with the narrow apertures available.

Here are some sample shots (zebra and bird are hand-held, big cats are with bean-bag):

... and a long crop at 300mm in dimming light. Resolution is starting to suffer here.

S

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Couldn't disagree more. For the money the 75-300 is a quite sharp telephoto zoom. Also, my copy is sharp at 300mm if my technique and handholding ability is up to snuff. Since many of my 300mm shots are sharp, it shows that the "lack of sharpness" is just the ability to hold the lens still.

I agree, It must depend on the body and technique. I'm getting 9/10 sharp shots at 300mm, even with shutter speeds as low as 1/80 sec. It's decently sharp at 300mm, and extremely sharp at 75-250mm.

A recent shot with this lens:

Unfortunately, I am no longer able to hand-hold a long lens without getting camera shake, so I raise the the ISO and shutter speed. Perhaps you have the same problem.

It is easily sharp enough for A3+ prints.

Zebra portrait

Sad

Peter Del

maltmoose wrote:

I'd like to see the evidence that 75mm vs 300 will give a comparable or better image, even 200 or 150mm vs 75 for that matter.

I wish it were true as i would be using my 25mm instead of a 100mm telephoto..

I don't really see how the 25mm instead of 100mm applies here....

I'm talking about a very specific prime lens, known to be one of the sharpest lenses ever made being used as an alternative to to what is essentially the "kit" X-300mm small aperture telephoto option from olympus.

In this very specific comparison, in conditions that push the 75-300 into requiring higher iso or under-exposure and electronic shutter to produce acceptable results, the 75mm prime is apt to produce an image that can be cropped to a very similar "effective" resolve, and in some cases will likely out-resolve the zoom lens.

In ideal conditions for the 75-300, yes, it can out-resolve crops from the 75mm prime, especially ~200mm, where it's still reasonably sharp, and delivering a pretty narrow perspective compared to the 75mm prime.

The issue for me has been, that rarely have I ever found myself grabbing for the telephoto lens in "ideal" conditions. Wildlife sightings almost always happen at dusk and dawn.

mdocod wrote:

maltmoose wrote:

I'd like to see the evidence that 75mm vs 300 will give a comparable or better image, even 200 or 150mm vs 75 for that matter.

I wish it were true as i would be using my 25mm instead of a 100mm telephoto..

I don't really see how the 25mm instead of 100mm applies here....

I'm talking about a very specific prime lens, known to be one of the sharpest lenses ever made being used as an alternative to to what is essentially the "kit" X-300mm small aperture telephoto option from olympus.

In this very specific comparison, in conditions that push the 75-300 into requiring higher iso or under-exposure and electronic shutter to produce acceptable results, the 75mm prime is apt to produce an image that can be cropped to a very similar "effective" resolve, and in some cases will likely out-resolve the zoom lens.

Comparing a $550 "kit" zoom to a $899 prime lens somehow seems disingenuous. These are two different animals. It's like comparing a BMW 3 series against a Dodge Caravan. one is fairly exotic, the other is built for utility.

Lab tests at imaging resources reveal similar results. In many conditions, the 75mm prime "resolves" about double the effective resolution compared to the 75-300....

Interesting...

Here is what Imaging Resource had to say about the 75-300

"Sharpness
The 75-300mm ƒ/4.8-6.7 II offers excellent results in the wider end of its focal length spectrum. Even used wide open at 75mm and ƒ/4.8, the lens produces tack-sharp images from corner to corner (this is also true at 100mm and ƒ/5.1). Stopping down at either of these focal lengths doesn't produce any tangible increase in sharpness.

At 150mm and above, resolution suffers a bit. Wide open at ƒ/5.6 and 150mm, the central area of the frame is nice and sharp and we note some corner softness in the extreme corners, but stopping down to ƒ/8 or greater doesn't actually improve the corners - rather, the center degrades a bit to match the corners.

At 200mm and 300mm, the lens offers above-average performance for sharpness; the center is decently sharp, but the corners are significantly soft. Stopping down to ƒ/11 does help at the 200mm setting, but at 300mm setting, there's no significant improvement.

Diffraction limiting sets in at ƒ/11, though the results at the shorter focal lengths aren't immediately obvious until ƒ/16 or ƒ/22, where we note very soft results across the frame "

-- hide signature --

The takeaway, from my experience with both of these lenses, is that the 75mm prime can do a lot of the work that the 75-300 can through post-cropping due to extraordinary sharpness and reduced noise from being able to operate at lower iso or higher exposure. On the other hand, the 75-300 can't step in and do the work that the 75mm prime can.

This may seem counter-intuitive, but that is my experience, take it or leave it.

Comparing a $550 "kit" zoom to a $899 prime lens somehow seems disingenuous. These are two different animals. It's like comparing a BMW 3 series against a Dodge Caravan. one is fairly exotic, the other is built for utility.

The ginuinuity of the comparison is subjective and irrelevant.

The point I'm making, based on my experience, is that it may make more sense for some buyers, to consider skipping right over the 75-300, and buying a nicer/different lens to begin with, thus, saving them the $550 stepping stone to get there.

In reality, what we're comparing here, a $900 prime, to a $1450 situation that may have been avoidable if the buyer had read some more more critical reviews of the $550 option in the first place.

I don't feel obligated to defend my purchasing decisions with raving reviews on everything I buy. The reality is everything I have ever purchased, and everything I ever will purchase, has flaws in my own critical eye, and I'm not afraid to point them out.

One thing I am noticing here on DPREVIEW, is that a simple mostly positive sounding review, gets no attention, because it is the positive reinforcement people are looking for to rationalize their purchase decision. A critical review that covers all the flaws of a product, gets tons of attention, from people very concerned with defending their perception of the qualities and rationalization of their purchase decision.

-Eric

I'll pay more attention to my technique, shutter speeds, etc, next time I'm out with this lens, but I don't really think I'm doing a lot wrong with it.

I typically shoot this lens crouched, using a knee to stabilize it, adjust iso/exposure to achieve shutter speeds of ~1/100 or faster.

I wouldn't consider myself a jittery photographer. I routinely get sharp images, handheld, shooting base iso with 1/8-1/2 second exposures on my collection of primes.

I also need to give the latest firmware a chance on the body with this lens... I noticed a big change in the way anti-shock is handled compared to previous firmware. (didn't have an automatic anti-shock option before). I wonder if any other changes to the anti-shock algorithm are in play here. I had previously noticed best results shooting electronic shutter only.

mdocod wrote:

Comparing a $550 "kit" zoom to a $899 prime lens somehow seems disingenuous. These are two different animals. It's like comparing a BMW 3 series against a Dodge Caravan. one is fairly exotic, the other is built for utility.

I don't feel obligated to defend my purchasing decisions with raving reviews on everything I buy. The reality is everything I have ever purchased, and everything I ever will purchase, has flaws in my own critical eye, and I'm not afraid to point them out.

And yet here you are defending your position.

One thing I am noticing here on DPREVIEW, is that a simple mostly positive sounding review, gets no attention, because it is the positive reinforcement people are looking for to rationalize their purchase decision. A critical review that covers all the flaws of a product, gets tons of attention, from people very concerned with defending their perception of the qualities and rationalization of their purchase decision.

-Eric

I stand by my assessment of your review. The 75-300 and 75mm prime are simply two different animals.

shinndigg wrote:

mdocod wrote:

Comparing a $550 "kit" zoom to a $899 prime lens somehow seems disingenuous. These are two different animals. It's like comparing a BMW 3 series against a Dodge Caravan. one is fairly exotic, the other is built for utility.

I don't feel obligated to defend my purchasing decisions with raving reviews on everything I buy. The reality is everything I have ever purchased, and everything I ever will purchase, has flaws in my own critical eye, and I'm not afraid to point them out.

And yet here you are defending your position.

What? Your argument here doesn't even make any sense.

One thing I am noticing here on DPREVIEW, is that a simple mostly positive sounding review, gets no attention, because it is the positive reinforcement people are looking for to rationalize their purchase decision. A critical review that covers all the flaws of a product, gets tons of attention, from people very concerned with defending their perception of the qualities and rationalization of their purchase decision.

-Eric

I stand by my assessment of your review. The 75-300 and 75mm prime are simply two different animals.

-- hide signature --

shinndigg
www.pbase.com/shinndigg

Yes, they are indeed very different animals. That's the whole point. Despite being very different animals, there is an area of overlap in functionality that most will overlook.

Many folks may not even consider the 75 prime as even being on the radar when looking for a telephoto zoom lens. Yet, it has merit as an alternative to the zoom, that can produce superior results in many conditions.